R A And Co,petitioner-assessee,that the respondent had issued a single show cause notice and passed a consolidated assessment order for six financial years (2017-18 to 2022-23), which went against Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. They claimed that the law required separate notices and orders for each year.

Step by Step Handbook for Filing GST Appeals, Click Here

The notice was issued just three months before the limitation period for 2017-18, forcing the petitioner to respond for all six years within a short time. This made it difficult to collect documents and caused hardship.

They also pointed out practical issues with bunching multiple years together, such as difficulties in compounding offences, using amnesty schemes, or settling or selectively challenging specific years. They relied on the Titan Company Ltd. case and a Division Bench ruling, both of which supported year-wise assessments with a minimum four-week gap.

The petitioner requested the impugned order to be quashed.

In response, the department argued that the GST Act did not bar issuing a single notice for multiple years. They claimed that the phrase “any period” in Sections 73 and 74 allowed notices for a block of years. Since the petitioner had accepted clubbing of month-wise periods, there was no issue in clubbing years.

They maintained that the notice was valid and issued within the limitation period, and sought dismissal of the petition.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy considered arguments from both sides and examined Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The main issue was whether a single assessment order could be passed for multiple financial years.

It found that the law required a separate show cause notice for each financial year. A notice issued under Section 73(1) or 74(1) could be followed by statements under sub-section (3) only for periods within the same financial year and on the same grounds. These statements would then be treated as notices under sub-section (1).

All-in-One Manual with Updated GST Laws & Provisions, Click Here

The Court made it clear that a notice must relate to a specific tax period, based on monthly or annual returns, and could not cover multiple years. Each year had to be dealt with separately through individual notices and orders.

Sections 73(2) and 74(2) set specific timelines three or six months before the end of the limitation period under Sections 73(10) or 74(10). Final orders had to be passed within three or five years from the due date of the annual return for that year.

The Court clarified that the term “any period” referred to a “tax period” as defined under Section 2(106), meaning the period for which returns were filed. It rejected the argument that this term could include multiple financial years.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd. and the Kerala High Court’s decision in Tharayil Medicals, the Court confirmed that each financial year had to be assessed separately. Clubbing years together could unfairly extend limitation periods and make it harder for taxpayers to respond or seek relief under Sections 128 or 138.

Understand the complete process and tax nuances of GST refunds, Click Here

The Court also noted that in a previous case involving Titan, it had already held that limitation periods could not be merged across years.

It concluded that by issuing a single notice for five financial years, the department had acted beyond its legal authority. The bench quashed the consolidated order and allowed the writ petition.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates